Regulators publish long-awaited framework for tokenised deposits

Regulators have published a long-awaited framework for tokenised deposits, and the headline is a distinction that sounds technical but carries large consequences. The guidance draws a firm line between tokens issued by banks against actual deposits and stablecoins issued by non-banks. Who sits on which side of that line will shape who can issue on-chain money, under what rules, and with what protections.

What is a tokenised deposit?

A tokenised deposit is a blockchain representation of money held in a commercial bank account. It remains a bank liability — a claim on the issuing bank — but it can move on-chain with the speed and programmability of a crypto token. Crucially, it stays inside the existing banking system: it is created when a customer's deposit is tokenised and extinguished when it is redeemed, and it typically carries the regulatory and, where applicable, deposit-insurance framework that already governs bank money.

How do tokenised deposits differ from stablecoins?

The difference is foundational rather than cosmetic. A stablecoin is usually issued by a non-bank against a reserve of cash and other assets; a tokenised deposit is issued by a bank and is the same legal thing as the deposit it represents. That changes the risk profile, the applicable rules, and the safety net behind the token.

• Tokenised deposits are bank liabilities and stay within the regulated banking perimeter.
• Stablecoins are typically issued by non-banks backed by a separate reserve of assets.
• Deposit protections and existing banking supervision may extend to tokenised deposits.
• The two can carry different treatment for capital, redemption, and consumer safeguards.

Why does the distinction matter?

It matters because it decides who is allowed to do what. By framing tokenised deposits as bank money, regulators keep them squarely inside a mature supervisory system, complete with the oversight and safety mechanisms that implies. Stablecoins, meanwhile, are pushed toward their own emerging rulebook. This lets banks tokenise money without being reclassified as stablecoin issuers, and it gives large institutions a compliant route to move value on-chain while keeping non-bank issuers on a separate track.

Who benefits from the tokenised deposit framework?

Banks are the clearest beneficiaries, since the guidance hands them a defined path to issue on-chain money without abandoning the deposit model that underpins their business. Institutional clients gain a settlement instrument that behaves like a token but carries familiar legal standing, which is attractive for treasury operations and wholesale payments. Stablecoin issuers face a more mixed picture: the clarity is welcome, but the framework reinforces that they operate under a different, generally stricter set of expectations than banks.

What are the open questions and risks?

Several issues remain unresolved. Interoperability is a live concern — whether tokenised deposits from different banks can move seamlessly between one another, or whether the system fragments into walled gardens. Cross-border treatment is unsettled, since a bank token recognised in one jurisdiction may not be elsewhere. And there is a competitive tension worth watching: if regulation makes bank-issued tokens materially safer in the eyes of users, it could pull activity away from stablecoins, reshaping a market that has grown up largely outside the banking system. The framework is a foundation, not a final word.

This article is analysis and does not constitute legal or financial advice. Regulatory frameworks vary by jurisdiction and continue to evolve.